Trusted source > open-source

As long as it's trusted, there is no lock-in, and the model supports maintaining the software, what do you have to lose?

"there is no lock-in" is a thing that's said a lot about Obsidian and, as an Obsidian fan, I feel like isn't totally true. Yes, Obsidian just stores markdown files, but it has unique syntaxes, especially if you're using plugins, that aren't transferable. So while I can get my files out, I still have to go through the annoying process of fixing them and getting it working in whatever new system I switch to when I leave. It's still far better than a lot of other proprietary tools, absolutely, but it's also not trivial to drop Obsidian if/when you stop using it

There are still free as in freedom software hardliner folks out there. The idea that every piece of revoked source code is an affront to computing rights might be less applicable in Obsidian's case since the files are still portable, and the system may be sufficiently extensible through custom plugins (you can load anything you want through the developer plugins option) that source code itself is not necessary. Though perhaps one might want to re-assure themselves that there is nothing 'malicious' happening in the software, that's only achievable with auditing it oneself and using reproducible builds. Perhaps the freedom to fork is also not as thoroughly infringed since the files are portable and reverse engineering is not impeded.

In what universe is it trusted? This blog post is an admission that they've been lying to their userbase about their review process for years, with updates receiving no review whatsoever. Enjoy your mass exfiltration.

I don't think it makes any sense given the history of tech companies to count any of them as a trusted source. Open source doesn't ask for your trust, and it is the only way to get off on the right foot.